Hi now that this issue is finally settled, (YES! We won! ) I have a few questions that I've pondered but never got the answer to yet. I was wondering if anyone here had any answers.

1. Why were big corporations against I695? What did corporations have to lose from I695? If it only cuts government revenues, why are corporations against it too? How does that hurt businesses?

2. I don't understand why the government says it won't have enough money to fund services without the tab fees. I mean the government can afford to spend billions and billions of dollars on nuclear warheads (like it did in the 80's) and billions of dollars on war campaigns (like it just did with Serbia) so why does it never have financial problems when funding wars and weapons, but when it comes to transportation and police services, they are broke? This doesn't make any sense at all. Am I missing something here?

3. On the 11 o'clock news tonight a legal analyst says that even though I695 is going to the courts, the courts will likely throw it back and say "Well that's the will of the people, so be it." Is this really true? I thought it could be tied up for years if they wanted to, but is it going to be just dismissed by the courts?

Thanks, Winston

-- Winston (WWu777@aol.com), November 03, 1999

Answers

I seriously doubt that the supreme court will so cavalierly dismiss a challenge to I-695. They invalidated term limits and approved the Mariner Stadium deal, both of which were contrary to the votes of the people.

There is a serious legal/political question posed by I-695: Do we live in a republic or do we live in a democracy? These concepts are interchangable in the popular mind, but have two very different meanings. The first contemplates a representative form of government, while the second contemplates a "town meeting" sort of government. I suspect that the constitutionality of I-695 will turn on whether the supreme court thinks that Article I, Secton 1 of the state constitution, which declares that the people retain all political power in government, trumps the other provisions that delegate the power to tax to the legislature.

The Northwest Legal Foundation, of which I am the Executive Director, will be following this matter very closely.

Richard Shepard

-- Richard Shepard (NLFndn@aol.com), November 03, 1999.

Now... if you'll just limit your activities to "following" the will of the people instead of attempting to interfere with it...

Westin

"A zebra does not change its spots." - Al Gore, attacking President George Bush in 1992.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), November 03, 1999.

First, I am not a lawyer. Second, I am a supporter for I-695 measure. My answer for your #3 question is that the U.S. Constitution (U.S. Const. Art. I, Section 8, cl.1) reserves "the power to tax and the police power to the states". A state must exercise its authority consistently with federal powers.

-- Binh Nguyen (btn5@juno.com), November 03, 1999.

The legislature still retains its power to tax us, the people simply affirm that tax, or reject it. Example: I, humble as I may be, cannot step out onto my front lawn, looking all regal 'n stuff and say "I, Paul, declare a new tax." I supposed I might be able to through the initiative process, but this still takes place through the mechanism of our government. The legislature can declare the NEED of a new tax, directly through the legislative process, it's just the affirmation of said tax, that comes from the people. Philosophically speaking, if the people don't have a say in their taxation, taxation being the foundation of all modern civilization, we are lost. We elect our officials so that they deal with budget issues directly. They know the nuances and technical points of the budget, and therefore they produce the bills which will apply new taxation, since they are the keepers of the budget process. The fact that those bills must then pass public scrutiny is not a mutually exclusive circumstance to a representative democracy. The representative democracy still holds true in that those same public officials will, in most cases, decide how and where the spending of those tax revenues will occur, and how the revenues will be managed. I don't expect my representative to ask me how wide a new lane on the highway should be. But I do want-- no, I demand that if that same representative is going to DECREE that I give him more of my paycheck, that he ask nicely before doing so. Remember, if we took the 'representative government' literally, we wouldn't vote on ANYTHING except those officials, and possibly not even that. They might be appointed be a permanent evolving board of trustees, which appoint and reappoint new people to the positions of government. This could still be arguably called a representative form of government, but I would doubt that you'd have many people sign on to such a concept. So, in conclusion, we live in a sort of mixed representative/republic/democracy. We leave the minutae up to the officials, but we demand that they pass public scrutiny when they put their hands in our wallets. Besides, the founding documents of the national government trump all the state level stuff, in my humble opinion, and those documents are quite clear about the peoples right and duty to take control of the governmental process if it has been routinely abused- as has been this one in Washington.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 03, 1999.